The Supremes

[Willfully Horn 8030]

5 hours ago, scottsins said:

FWIW, Obama’s ATF issued an interpretation of whether or not bump stocks met the statutory requirements to be classified as an automatic weapon, and thus illegal under the current gun laws. They, correctly, IMO, ruled that they did not.

And…because we suck as a nation, the legislative branch sat on their asses and never came close to actually passing a law banning bump stock use.

Trump’s ATF actually just said “fuck it. Those things aren’t legal.”, even though the statute was never changed.

This is another case of Congress not doing what they need to, followed by a “solution” that isn’t tenable under the Constitution. Kinda like DACA.

Stripping an enumerated right, the right to privacy, without an Amendment is the harm patriots ought consider injurious. Get out of here with DACA whinging.

[Nivek 16945]

Just think of how many more children can be killed while cops cower in fear of ar15s with bump stocks.

Prolife my ass.

[wildcat09 29355]

33 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Just think of how many more children can be killed while cops cower in fear of ar15s with bump stocks.

Prolife my ass.

You don’t get it though. That doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is some gun fetish “it’s not a clip it’s a magazine!” type pedantry that doesn’t actually matter in interpreting the law.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

If this had been some rule further restricting immigration rights or abortion rights and SCOTUS had overturned it because of executive overreach, plenty of y'all would be pissing your pants with jubilation. But the mere fact that this case had to do with restrictions on firearms that were almost universally agreed upon by both sides of the aisle to need congressional action to fix has made y'all so upset really speaks to what is broken in this system. Civil rights don't actually matter. The further consequences of decisions don't matter. All that matters is getting a W for you side in the hopes of transforming society into whatever vision you think is best for it. Damn the future implications of the decisions. This same attitude is what kept us one vote away from not being able to have sanctuary cities or states legalizing pot when the court decided Printz v United States. 

[tchookem 3900]

Did people own the ICBMs of the day: could an ordinary citizen have his own 80 cannon ship?

Sure, they were called pirates.

[Pods 7586]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You don’t get it though. That doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is some gun fetish “it’s not a clip it’s a magazine!” type pedantry that doesn’t actually matter in interpreting the law.

This is it. The entire ruling boils down to "this will trigger libs". 

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17625]

4 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If this had been some rule further restricting immigration rights or abortion rights and SCOTUS had overturned it because of executive overreach, plenty of y'all would be pissing your pants with jubilation. But the mere fact that this case had to do with restrictions on firearms that were almost universally agreed upon by both sides of the aisle to need congressional action to fix has made y'all so upset really speaks to what is broken in this system. Civil rights don't actually matter. The further consequences of decisions don't matter. All that matters is getting a W for you side in the hopes of transforming society into whatever vision you think is best for it. Damn the future implications of the decisions. This same attitude is what kept us one vote away from not being able to have sanctuary cities or states legalizing pot when the court decided Printz v United States. 

Are you actually reading this thread or is this some sort of performative art thing? 

[wildcat09 29355]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Are you actually reading this thread or is this some sort of performative art thing? 

It’s hard not to notice that in all his bloviating he still hasn’t engaged at all with the text of the statute.

[HenryJames 66125]

This is just setting the table for the end of Chevron deference.

[TwiceHorn 31496]

12 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Stripping an enumerated right, the right to privacy, without an Amendment is the harm patriots ought consider injurious. Get out of here with DACA whinging.

Point of order. Privacy is not an enumerated right.  The closest you can get is an implicit right from the 4th Amendment.

That was one of the frailties of Roe and its predecessors.  Setting aside reproductive freedom, it is the right of privacy that is under assault.  

[TwiceHorn 31496]

20 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

This is just setting the table for the end of Chevron deference.

Yuuuup.

And, as the discussion indicates, this was agency action when Congress failed to act.  

In some theoretical sense, it is preferable for Congress to act on these issues as it is more democratic.

On the other hand, what the fuck do you do when Congress is completely dysfunctional and unresponsive and/or lacks the expertise to act rationally or reasonably?

Then you get back to the theoretical notion that if Congress can't act, it's because the electorate lacks will on an issue and therefore it is appropriate that Congress not act.

But when Congress is gerrymandered all to hell so that a minority is close to a majority, well, all that kind of goes out the window.

Edited June 15 by TwiceHorn

[Willfully Horn 8030]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Point of order. Privacy is not an enumerated right.  The closest you can get is an implicit right from the 4th Amendment.

That was one of the frailties of Roe and its predecessors.  Setting aside reproductive freedom, it is the right of privacy that is under assault.  

Semantics. When SCOTUS recognized privacy as a right, it became enumerated afaiac, according to the ninth.

There was no mention of the consumption of alcohol being a right in the Constitution, and I am unaware of SCOTUS proclaiming it a right. Nevertheless, a Constitutional Amendment was deemed necessary to proscribe its use. 
 

The right to privacy was recognized as a right, and SQOTUS acted without regard for the ninth when it stripped privacy from our protections.

[TwiceHorn 31496]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Semantics. When SCOTUS recognized privacy as a right, it became enumerated afaiac, according to the ninth.

There was no mention of the consumption of alcohol being a right in the Constitution, and I am unaware of SCOTUS proclaiming it a right. Nevertheless, a Constitutional Amendment was deemed necessary to proscribe its use. 
 

The right to privacy was recognized as a right, and SQOTUS acted without regard for the ninth when it stripped privacy from our protections.

Semantics perhaps, but when you're dealing with laws, words are about all you got, at least to start with.

"Enumerated right" is a term of art and it means a right that is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

[Willfully Horn 8030]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Semantics perhaps, but when you're dealing with laws, words are about all you got, at least to start with.

"Enumerated right" is a term of art and it means a right that is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

I understood your point. Enumerate means to mention. Once mentioned , it becomes enumerated.

The ninth uses words, too.

Edited June 15 by Willfully Horn

[elfenix 34312]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I understood your point. Enumerate means to mention. Once nentioned, it becomes enumerated.

The ninth uses words, too.

[Willfully Horn 8030]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

Okay. Explain it to a dolt.

Edited to ask that you explain why the right to privacy can be voted away without an Amendment

Edited June 15 by Willfully Horn

[elfenix 34312]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Okay. Explain it to a dolt.

enumerated means explicitly mentioned in the constitution. preferring those rights specifically mentioned in the constitution is what the 9th amendment warns against.

 

(the random insertion of commas in the 9th amendment is pretty good argument that 18th century punctuation shouldn't be given huge meaning)

Edited June 15 by elfenix

[Brisketexan 105157]

Semantics perhaps, but when you're dealing with laws, words are about all you got, at least to start with.
"Enumerated right" is a term of art and it means a right that is explicitly set forth in the Constitution.

Which is only important if you FUCKING WRITE THE NINTH AMENDMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE GODDAMNED CONSTITUTION.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Whenever any fucking idiot - oh, and how often they are “conservative/libertarian Constitution-loving’ Americans!” - says “well, I don’t see that right in the Constitution!”, they reveal themselves to be the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

The right to be left the fuck alone and for the government to stay out of my business so long as it’s not hurting someone else is the fucking foundational right. The government shouldn’t have ANY say in who I fuck, how I fuck, whether we choose to get pregnant, and a million other things. The foundation of the right to privacy that Griswold and Roe and Loving are based on is the same motherfucking foundation that the Republican and the Constitution are based on. But fascist theocrats like Alito and Thomas don’t care about that…and they never, ever have.

[Willfully Horn 8030]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

 preferring those rights specifically mentioned in the constitution is what the 9th amendment warns against.

Would you please expand on this part of your answer?

[Brisketexan 105157]

Oh, and the irony here? When the BOR was first proposed, which faction most strongly opposed it because they were concerned that any enumeration of rights would be used to argue that the people don’t have rights that AREN’T enumerated? The Federalists.
Today, what group is the most influential and strident in the approach of “if the right isn’t specifically listed, fuck you, you don’t have that right?” The fucking Federalist Society.
Irony is dead, cremated, and shot into space.

[elfenix 34312]

28 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Would you please expand on this part of your answer?

i don't know what you want, it's pretty self apparent. 

[TwiceHorn 31496]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Which is only important if you FUCKING WRITE THE NINTH AMENDMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF THE GODDAMNED CONSTITUTION.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Whenever any fucking idiot - oh, and how often they are “conservative/libertarian Constitution-loving’ Americans!” - says “well, I don’t see that right in the Constitution!”, they reveal themselves to be the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

The right to be left the fuck alone and for the government to stay out of my business so long as it’s not hurting someone else is the fucking foundational right. The government shouldn’t have ANY say in who I fuck, how I fuck, whether we choose to get pregnant, and a million other things. The foundation of the right to privacy that Griswold and Roe and Loving are based on is the same motherfucking foundation that the Republican and the Constitution are based on. But fascist theocrats like Alito and Thomas don’t care about that…and they never, ever have.

I didn't say I agreed with it or that the 9th Amendment doesn't change anything.  I just pointed out that privacy is not an enumerated right.

[TwiceHorn 31496]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and the irony here? When the BOR was first proposed, which faction most strongly opposed it because they were concerned that any enumeration of rights would be used to argue that the people don’t have rights that AREN’T enumerated? The Federalists.
Today, what group is the most influential and strident in the approach of “if the right isn’t specifically listed, fuck you, you don’t have that right?” The fucking Federalist Society.
Irony is dead, cremated, and shot into space.

I think it might be erroneous to equate the Federalists of the late 18th Century with today's Federalist Society.  Maybe when it started, but not no mo.  If Hamilton was alive, he'd probably sue for false designation of origin and false light.

[Sawbonz 27578]

Hamilton would challenge Leonard Leo to a duel. And hopefully not miss

[Brisketexan 105157]

I think it might be erroneous to equate the Federalists of the late 18th Century with today's Federalist Society.  Maybe when it started, but not no mo.  If Hamilton was alive, he'd probably sue for false designation of origin and false light.

Kinda one of my points. They are hypocritical lying lair pieces of shit. They’re theocratic oligarchical fascists now, that’s it.

[scottsins 1968]

Stripping an enumerated right, the right to privacy, without an Amendment is the harm patriots ought consider injurious. Get out of here with DACA whinging.

Where the FUCK did I say that Americans shouldn’t be foremost concerned about stripping the right to privacy?

I compared it to DACA, because it’s another example of using executive order in place of a legislative solution. I’m IN FAVOR of the bump stock ban order and DACA.

I was explained, from a legal perspective, why the opinion being discussed might not be the best example of “SCOTUS = Calvinball”.

[Willfully Horn 8030]

2 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Where the FUCK did I say that Americans shouldn’t be foremost concerned about stripping the right to privacy?

I compared it to DACA, because it’s another example of using executive order in place of a legislative solution. I’m IN FAVOR of the bump stock ban order and DACA.

I was explained, from a legal perspective, why the opinion being discussed might not be the best example of “SCOTUS = Calvinball”.

Maybe take the DACA gripe to an appropriate thread, and keep the Supremes thread focused on SQOTUS.

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think it might be erroneous to equate the Federalists of the late 18th Century with today's Federalist Society.  Maybe when it started, but not no mo.  If Hamilton was alive, he'd probably sue for false designation of origin and false light.

As a founding member of my law school’s Federalist Society this hits close to home. 
 

The current version of that group bears no resemblance to the tenets we held back then. 

Edited June 15 by DDD Dad

[Nivek 16945]

21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You don’t get it though. That doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is some gun fetish “it’s not a clip it’s a magazine!” type pedantry that doesn’t actually matter in interpreting the law.

It was a quip, not to be taken too seriously.  The right-wingers never had any policy/belief beyond enriching the elites and holding onto power at all cost.  

[scottsins 1968]

Maybe take the DACA gripe to an appropriate thread, and keep the Supremes thread focused on SQOTUS.
 

Maybe there is a comparison to draw between the two executive actions, when speaking generally to the use of executive orders as opposed to legislative solutions.

Like I said, I was and am FOR DACA, so not sure where the “gripe is”.

[softlynow 1816]

This is why Dems fail. The GQP doesn’t bother with the appropriate way to do shit. They do it and make up a reason/mechanism later.

Enumerated right, unenumerated right? Who gives a shit it’s gone. 

[miguelito 11266]

Enumerated means more than numerated.

 

[YGIFS 19452]

Elevenumerated!

Well, why not just have Enumerated be 9th, and have that be the top ninemuration?  

These go to 11.  

[jimmyjazz 45978]

Personally, I feel each individual should be allowed to define their rights as they feel most comfortable.

Henumerated

Shenumerated

Theynumerated

 

etc.

[Willfully Horn 8030]

20 hours ago, scottsins said:

Maybe there is a comparison to draw between the two executive actions, when speaking generally to the use of executive orders as opposed to legislative solutions.

Like I said, I was and am FOR DACA, so not sure where the “gripe is”.

I understand your position now better than I did prior. My gripe is that I don’t see those two executive orders as apples to apples. 
 

I, too, think bump stocks ought be illegal,  and agree that an executive order banning them is an overreach, and we probably share disgust at our legislative dysfunction.

I don’t feel the same way about enforcing immigration laws against children. I point to the discretion afforded law enforcement as a foundation to counter the charge of executive overreach.  I see one executive order as outside the power of office, but not the other.

 

Still, I realize I overreacted, and, for that, I apologize.

[Captainant 27680]

20 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Henumerated

Shenumerated

Theynumerated

Xenumerated

[DDD Dad 14339]

2 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I understand your position now better than I did prior. My gripe is that I don’t see those two executive orders as apples to apples. 
 

I, too, think bump stocks ought be illegal,  and agree that an executive order banning them is an overreach, and we probably share disgust at our legislative dysfunction.

I don’t feel the same way about enforcing immigration laws against children. I point to the discretion afforded law enforcement as a foundation to counter the charge of executive overreach.  I see one executive order as outside the power of office, but not the other.

 

Still, I realize I overreacted, and, for that, I apologize.

You realize this is the internet, right?  Reasonable discussion is highly disfavored. 

[Dnaguy 12002]

28 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You realize this is the internet, right?  Reasonable discussion is highly disfavored. 

The internet:

Edited June 17 by Dnaguy

[TwiceHorn 31496]

While the existence of unenumerated rights is undoubtable,sometimes the scope of enumerated rights is a little easier. Cf. those enumerated rights prefaced by an incomprehensible, nonsequitur statement like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." 

[Chuckie Finster 22701]

Ignore, fooled by trolls online.

[Js1 85416]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Seeing lots of comments about fencing being put up around SCOTUS today. Can’t tell if this is a non-story or an ominous sign of what’s about to come down.

The 24th is the 2 year anniversary of Dobbs. Wouldn’t be surprised for some good ole protesting and marching. 

[C-Man 27230]

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/amy-coney-barrett-clarence-thomas-originalism/index.html

Quote

On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a guide, a dispute may be simmering over how many modern cases can be resolved by looking to the nation’s past.

Though Justice Clarence Thomas’ decision in a major trademark case last week was unanimous, it prompted a sharp debate led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett over the use of history to decide the case.

Barrett, the newest conservative on the court, accused Thomas, the most senior associate justice, of a “laser-like focus on the history” that “misses the forest for the trees.”

The back-and-forth could signal a recalibration by some members of the court of how and when to apply originalism, the dominant legal doctrine among the court’s conservatives that demands the Constitution be interpreted based on its original meaning.

Even a slight change could have enormous consequences for the court’s blockbuster cases, including a pending case that is likely to focus heavily on history to decide whether Americans who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders can be barred from owning guns.

“Barrett’s critique of originalism definitely signals what seems to be a growing rift among the originalists on the court about the proper way to use history,” said Tom Wolf, a constitutional law expert with the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.

“There definitely is the potential formation here of an alternative or several alternative approaches to history that ultimately draw a majority,” Wolf said.

A lewd trademark gets historic treatment

When the Supreme Court last week rejected a lawyer’s bid to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small,” all nine justices agreed on the outcome, but strong disagreements arose over the majority’s decision to invoke the nation’s “history and tradition” to rebuff the trademark.

Barrett, who endorsed the court’s conclusion that a provision of federal trademark law barring the registration of an individual’s name without that person’s consent is constitutional, wrote separately to express her displeasure with the reasoning of Thomas’ decision to rely on “history and tradition.”

That route, Barrett argued in a 15-page concurrence, “is wrong twice over.” The court’s three liberals signed on to parts of Barrett’s opinion.

Though Barrett acknowledged in her opinion that “tradition has a legitimate role to play in constitutional adjudication,” the Trump nominee said that “the court’s laser-like focus on the history of this single restriction misses the forest for the trees” and sought to poke holes in the history and tradition-first route taken by Thomas and the other conservative justices who agreed with his legal rationale.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, a leading proponent of originalism on the Supreme Court, once described his approach to interpreting the Constitution as a “piece of cake.” But the debate playing out this term may be a recognition from some on the court that history is often messy and nuanced in a way that doesn’t always yield easy answers.

“What we could be seeing is a more nuanced approach to using that history,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center.

“It’s much more complicated than that – history is much more contested than that,” Wydra said. “And so to have this debate between two conservative justices, I think, brings a lot of light to the discussion.”

Several court watchers said it is far too early to read too much into the debate between Thomas and Barrett.

“It’s clear that Barrett thinks tradition is sometimes relevant – and that she may have some difference with Thomas about when and exactly how much,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. “But there’s not really a clear theory here.”

The ‘limits’ of history

The court’s approach to history will be closely scrutinized in its blockbuster Second Amendment decision expected in the coming days. In US v. Rahimi, the justices must decide the fate of a federal law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence retraining orders from owning guns.

While a majority of the justices indicated during arguments in November that they will uphold the law, the real challenge for the conservatives will be how to square that decision with a two-year-old precedent that held gun prohibitions must have historical ties to survive under the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Thomas wrote that modern gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition.”

But there were no gun laws on the books at the nation’s founding that dealt explicitly with domestic violence. And so to uphold the federal law, the court will have to likely have to at least explain how that standard applies to modern laws.

Video Ad Feedback

Supreme Court strikes down ban on bump stocks

06:50 - Source: CNN

When Thomas issued his majority decision in Bruen two years ago, Barrett joined Thomas’ opinion in full. But she also penned a brief concurrence to highlight the “limits on the permissible use of history” in deciding cases. Among them, she said, was identifying the historical date needed to assess whether a restriction was constitutional.

In the months and years following the court’s decision in Bruen, the “history and tradition” framework has led judges across the US to strike down various gun restrictions while also perplexing some jurists who have noted the obstacles that accompany the new rule.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, too, noted those issues in a concurrence she issued last week in the trademark case.

“The majority attempts to reassure litigants and the lower courts that a ‘history-focused approac[h]’ here is sensible and workable, by citing … Bruen,” she wrote. “To say that such reassurance is not comforting would be an understatement. One need only read a handful of lower court decisions applying Bruen to appreciate the confusion this Court has caused.”

The court’s other two liberals signed on to Sotomayor’s concurrence. Barrett did not.

History saves banking watchdog

Last month, another split emerged in a case involving the funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal banking watchdog created in response to the 2008 financial meltdown. The payday lending industry sued the agency, claiming that the way Congress set up its funding violated the Constitution’s appropriation clause.

Writing for a 7-2 majority, Thomas dived deeply into pre-colonial English history and found that parliament – even as it tightened its grip on the government’s purse – did not “micromanage every aspect of the king’s finances.”

The legislature, in other words, gave the king some latitude and that discretion for the executive continued in the early days of the United States. Based on that history, the court upheld the modern agency’s funding.

RELATED ARTICLEWhat could happen if the Supreme Court sides with the January 6 rioters

But in a striking concurrence that captured support from both liberal and conservative justices, Justice Elena Kagan asserted that the court’s historic analysis need not end with the late-18th century. Instead, Kagan wrote, the court could look at more modern times – a “continuing tradition” to decide the constitutionality of a government policy.

Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both members of the court’s conservative wing, joined that analysis, along with Sotomayor – suggesting that there may be different ways of thinking about history and tradition even among the conservatives who have ushered in that approach to deciding cases.

“I see this basically as an evolving dialogue amongst all the justices on the court and some of it is certainly being informed by the aftermath of some really ill-informed and deeply damaging opinions from earlier terms,” said Wolf, pointing to Bruen and the court’s decision two years ago overturning Roe v. Wade.

“Certain justices clearly understood the substantive problems with those rulings and also the methods problems with relying on history as dispositive in those cases at the time the court was doing it,” he added.

Thomas looks to English courts in trademark fight

In the trademark dispute, Vidal v. Elster, Thomas’ legal reasoning for upholding the section of the Lanham Act at issue broke new ground: It was, Sotomayor wrote, the first time the court had taken the history and tradition approach to decide a free speech controversy.

Training his sights on the nation’s “long history” of maintaining restrictions on trademarking names, Thomas invoked a series of cases dating as far back as the 19th Century and from courts outside the US.

“We see no evidence that the common law afforded protection to a person seeking a trademark of another living person’s name. To the contrary, English courts recognized that selling a product under another person’s name could be actionable fraud,” he wrote. “This recognition carried over to our country.”

Thomas’ rationale was joined by Kavanaugh, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

But Barrett, Kagan, Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson parted ways with those five justices.

Barrett’s concurrence said the dispute could have been dealt with based on the court’s past precedent with trademark law and stressed that just leaning on the nation’s trademark history wasn’t good enough.

“In my view, the historical record does not alone suffice to demonstrate the clause’s constitutionality,” she wrote.

She went on to argue that even though the five-justice majority said it wasn’t creating a new test in its opinion, “a rule rendering tradition dispositive is itself a judge-made test.”

 

[Js1 85416]

26 minutes ago, C-Man said:

The back-and-forth could signal a recalibration by some members of the court of how and when to apply originalism

[6th Street 6414]

Fuck that cunt

[South Austin 52519]

Barrett has been fine using the "history and tradition" bullshit philosophy to decide gun cases.  She's firmly in the originalism camp.  She probably just issued this one criticism of Clarence Thomas because she found pubic hairs on her Diet Coke can.

Edited June 19 by South Austin

[Brisketexan 105157]

34 minutes ago, C-Man said:

While a majority of the justices indicated during arguments in November that they will uphold the law, the real challenge for the conservatives will be how to square that decision with a two-year-old precedent that held gun prohibitions must have historical ties to survive under the Second Amendment. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Thomas wrote that modern gun laws must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition.”

But there were no gun laws on the books at the nation’s founding that dealt explicitly with domestic violence. And so to uphold the federal law, the court will have to likely have to at least explain how that standard applies to modern laws.

Fucking this.  I mean, it's that simple.  There was no "history and tradition" of laws protecting women from domestic abuse because....women functionally HAD NO FUCKING RIGHTS.

For fuck's sake, the Bruen approach would utterly gut and destroy the First Amendment, because hey, in 1790, there was no such thing as "speech" via....TV broadcast, radio broadcast, the internet.  So, all that was meant to be protected was 1) standing on a box in the public square yelling shit, and printing pamphlets like "Common Sense."  That's it.  Full stop.  That is the sum total of speech that the First Amendment was ORIGINALLY INTENDED to protect.  

Nevermind that "originalism" is a 100% disingenuous cherrypicking approach.  The "originalists" find what they want to find, and ignore what they want to ignore, to reach their desired conclusion.  It is, in no uncertain terms, a lie of an approach.  Nevermind that it's fucking preposterous in that it requires us to freeze all time, technology, and laws as of 1790.  No electronic communication.  Fuck, no electricity at all.  Women couldn't own property.  Etc. etc. ad absurdum.  Thomas and Alito are both lying pieces of shit, in every single thing they write, say, or do.

When ACB is calling you on your bullshit, you are truly the lowest layer of whale shit on the bottom of the ocean.

[wildcat09 29355]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/19/politics/amy-coney-barrett-clarence-thomas-originalism/index.html

 

I don't believe her act for one second. If she had a problem with their bullshit historicism she wouldn't have joined them in Dobbs and Bruen. 

[Dnaguy 12002]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't believe her act for one second. 

 

This.

What woman doesn't enjoy bringing up old shit from the past that proves her point?

Total smokescreen IMO.

Edited June 19 by Dnaguy

[tx 3 putt 77073]

so tomorrow is the big day ?

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

so tomorrow is the big day ?

Well this was yesterday.  Clarence back at Crow’s estate in upstate NY.  Don’t think you’ll see this pic anywhere else, not yet anyways.  So yes, has to be today…